What, other than the bias exhibited so obviously by its network's debate moderators, would prompt FoxNews to exclude Ron Paul from its last debate before the New Hampshire primary? Ron Paul has out-fundraised all of his Republican rivals for the presidency in the fourth quarter of 2007. "Given that Paul has about twice as much support in New Hampshire than Thompson, he's likely to finish ahead of Giuliani in Iowa, and he's raised more money in the fourth quarter than any of them, it's hard to understand how the Republican network can justify excluding Paul," CBSNews.com's Steve Benen writes. "What's more, the state GOP has said it wants Paul on the stage, meaning that it's Fox News specifically that's decided to exclude the Texas Republican from the event." Add to this the fact that Ron Paul has been in public life for more than a quarter century elected to Congress more than ten times--he's not Alan Keyes, for Rupert's sake--and FoxNews's decision appears even more petty.

I'm imagining that Sean Hannity threw a hissy fit and said that if Ron Paul was in this last debate that he'd leave Fox.

We can only dream Obi.

That Judith Reagan lady (the mistress of Bernie Kerik) let the cat out of the bag that Fox has been trying to angle for Giuliani's nomination all along. Then on the other side Rupert has given his support to Hillary. Win-win for their interests I suppose if either one wins. Sad that media big wigs want to control the news and offices of power rather than report on them. But I suppose it has always been that way (William Randolph Hearst and Dan Rather e.g.).

I don't know if these elites will succeed but sticking it to them is a good reason to support Paul imo.

This is outrageous! A legitimate candidate with a strong organization has to be included in any debate or forum. Again though: the observers trying to make the news they want and bend reality to their model.